If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

This item from MLBTR says that Atlanta and the Mariners both made "aggressive" last minute offers to the Tribe to try and snake Choo away from the Reds. Probably speaks to the value that Gregorious had.

Also, lower in the piece, it states the Phils may consider moving a LH relieve. Any interest in Antonio Bastardo or Raul Valdes?

It's still awfully inconsistent, Doug. You are dismissing Cozart because of his on-base percentage but last night fretting the loss of Gregorius because his defense, in the bigger picture, makes him valuable in spite of his weak bat. So shouldn't you be applying the same thinking to Cozart's 3 WAR?

I think Gregorius has the potential to have both a better bat and better defense than Cozart. My issue isn't so much that we don't have Gregorius and do have Cozart, it is that we have every egg in the basket with Cozart's name on it and I truly don't think he is all that good or a safe bet moving forward. We could do worse of course. But every egg we have is in his basket for several years to come and he is a 27 year old with a pretty crappy bat.

You can develop more prospects. You can go out and sign organizational depth that will be far more ready to step in than Gregorius. Heck, Jason Donald will be able to do what Gregorius could do right now.

I know we can. That's the point I was bringing up. We need to do it sooner rather than later. Trading Didi and moving Hamilton off of short has left the SS cupboard BARE! Sure we can address it with the draft, but that won't help us soon enough. And sure, Donald could come in and do what Didi could...with the bat. My concern is with the leather. That's where we have the shortage. We don't even have a glove only guy in the minors for that slot.

And while Donald and Hannahan can cover SS for a short period of time, it's not their real position and the defense takes a major blow. We can cover a poor bat in the lineup. But a hack at short with the glove is a whole different thing.

I think Gregorius has the potential to have both a better bat and better defense than Cozart. My issue isn't so much that we don't have Gregorius and do have Cozart, it is that we have every egg in the basket with Cozart's name on it and I truly don't think he is all that good or a safe bet moving forward. We could do worse of course. But every egg we have is in his basket for several years to come and he is a 27 year old with a pretty crappy bat.

I'd rather have a 27 year old with a so-called "crappy bat" as the devil I know than a 23 year old with a "crappy bat" as the devil I don't know.

Cozart last year was an above average shortstop. I don't know why that should be fretted. The Reds should have 3-4 years to develop someone else to step in.

"No matter how good you are, you're going to lose one-third of your games. No matter how bad you are you're going to win one-third of your games. It's the other third that makes the difference." ~Tommy Lasorda

I see the argument, but it seems a little greedy calling for competent minor league back ups at every position. If the need arises for a different long term option for whatever reason., I'm assuming that'll get addressed just like anything else.

Just to be clear, that's not what I'm calling for. I'm calling for competent DEFENDERS at defense-first positions at SOME of the minor league levels. If we had a viable SS defender at AA. I could live with it. But I think we have to go all the way down to A ball or even rookie ball to find a real shortstop defensively. Sure, I'd love a whole-package kind of SS at every level. But that's not going to happen of course. But at least 1 glove-first guy at either AAA or AA is not too much to expect IMO. (again, I'm talking about SS, CF, C for the most part)

Just to be clear, that's not what I'm calling for. I'm calling for competent DEFENDERS at defense-first positions at SOME of the minor league levels. If we had a viable SS defender at AA. I could live with it. But I think we have to go all the way down to A ball or even rookie ball to find a real shortstop defensively. Sure, I'd love a whole-package kind of SS at every level. But that's not going to happen of course. But at least 1 glove-first guy at either AAA or AA is not too much to expect IMO. (again, I'm talking about SS, CF, C for the most part)

"No matter how good you are, you're going to lose one-third of your games. No matter how bad you are you're going to win one-third of your games. It's the other third that makes the difference." ~Tommy Lasorda

I think Gregorius has the potential to have both a better bat and better defense than Cozart. My issue isn't so much that we don't have Gregorius and do have Cozart, it is that we have every egg in the basket with Cozart's name on it and I truly don't think he is all that good or a safe bet moving forward. We could do worse of course. But every egg we have is in his basket for several years to come and he is a 27 year old with a pretty crappy bat.

I think it ultimately came down to the fact that Cozart is a proven commodity that's likely to be a solid player next year and going forward. Didi is an unknown, and while he may be better down the road, I feel much better about only Cozart than only Didi right now.

I'm honestly curious... what's really being debated here? Should the Reds not have acquired Choo just because now they don't have a 23-year old, unproven backup to Cozart?

"No matter how good you are, you're going to lose one-third of your games. No matter how bad you are you're going to win one-third of your games. It's the other third that makes the difference." ~Tommy Lasorda

He is, and I agree that he is. But a back-up middle infielder is not the same as a regular shortstop for an extended period of time. 2b is Donald's natural position. He's considerably worse at short. As is Hannahan (although 3b is his natural slot).

I'm honestly curious... what's really being debated here? Should the Reds not have acquired Choo just because now they don't have a 23-year old, unproven backup to Cozart?

I don't think anybody is saying we shouldn't have acquired Choo. Or even traded a shortstop. Just that there is some major risk involved in this trade because it leaves us DESPERATELY shorthanded at shortstop if an injury occurs. It also significantly reduces our outfield defense. (yes, there's also a significant uptick in offense...but those other 2 risks are still very real and very concerning)

Add in the phrase "if he stays healthy" to your last sentence. If he doesn't...we have ZERO fallback.

I renew my question, should they not have done the deal for that reason alone? If you agree they still should have, then I'm really not sure what the fuss is about.

"No matter how good you are, you're going to lose one-third of your games. No matter how bad you are you're going to win one-third of your games. It's the other third that makes the difference." ~Tommy Lasorda

I'd rather have a 27 year old with a so-called "crappy bat" as the devil I know than a 23 year old with a "crappy bat" as the devil I don't know.

Cozart last year was an above average shortstop. I don't know why that should be fretted. The Reds should have 3-4 years to develop someone else to step in.

I'd rather have the other guy, but that isn't the point. The point is that Cozart probably isn't going to get better and may get worse, and if he does get worse, there is literally no one to replace him. Or if he gets hurt.

WAR says Cozart was an above-average shortstop last year. Not sure I fully buy into that. Was he average? Yeah, I could buy into that. Not sure I buy into anything more than that.

I am basically hinging on this, if Cozart takes even a slight step backwards in his game, I don't see him as "starting material", but the Reds don't have a single option behind him to replace him. I am not saying he will. I am saying he could. And if he does, the Reds have no options but to play him. It is like Stubbs all over again. You must play a crappy option because you don't have another one. Except that with how it looks right now, if that step backward does come this year, you may be stuck with that for years. It is a concern for me.

I don't think anybody is saying we shouldn't have acquired Choo. Or even traded a shortstop. Just that there is some major risk involved in this trade because it leaves us DESPERATELY shorthanded at shortstop if an injury occurs. It also significantly reduces our outfield defense. (yes, there's also a significant uptick in offense...but those other 2 risks are still very real and very concerning)

There's risk to every trade. And I truly get the impression Doug is saying the trade shouldn't be made, or else he's being awfully argumentative for a point that really doesn't make much difference.

If the position is there's risk, well what trade doesn't have risk involved?

"No matter how good you are, you're going to lose one-third of your games. No matter how bad you are you're going to win one-third of your games. It's the other third that makes the difference." ~Tommy Lasorda

Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please.

Thank you, and most
importantly, enjoy yourselves!

RedsZone.com is a privately owned website and is not affiliated with the Cincinnati Reds or Major League Baseball